I’m sure Trump will renominate Garland. In fact he’s going to announce it on the Greek Kalends.
We don’t need an analogy or little scenario where I am the protagonist to understand. The facts of the actual story are pretty well known. Two people resigned over the order to fire the special prosecutor. Bork didn’t. The usual defence is that he was urged to by his former superiors because they feared Nixon would soon be down to the Justice Department janitor to carry out the order. Also, Bork very likely thought it was legal. So in essence, Bork jumped on the grenade. Well, maybe that was the right thing to do but jumping on grenades has consequences. A pretty reasonable low bar consequence to participating in those shenanigans is that you don’t get the absolute pinnacle job in the legal profession.
But that’s probably enough rehashing of a 30/45 year past controversy. I know I’m not going to convince anyone who fervently believes Bork’s denial started the whole partisan nomination wars. It’s too important that it be true.
And, indeed, Bork might have been payback for Fortas/Thornberry.
See, this I don’t have any quarrel with, per se, because it’s not the equivalent of what you said before (he was adjudged to have done an illegal thing, disqualifying him).
I, certainly, am not one who believes it started with Bork.
(post shortened)
Bork chose to fire the Special Prosecutor.
A court said Bork did something illegal. Many people agree with that assessment.
As a result of Bork’s action, Bork was later denied a seat on the SCOTUS.
As a result of a court’s declaration, Bork was later denied a seat on the SCOTUS.
Because many people disliked Nixon, AND the people who helped Nixon’s attempted cover up, Bork was later denied a seat on the SCOTUS.
Semantics and legalese aside, Bork fuck Bork when he fired the Special Prosecutor.
This Bork argument kind of reminds me of when some Southerners say slavery wasn’t at the heart of the Civil War based on later revisionist history (and I don’t consider ‘revisionist history’ a dirty word necessarily), the argument they want to have today. But the secession documents of the various states were filled with references to slavery, SC’s, the first one, little else.
In Bork case the argument being litigated here, Bork and Watergate, was brought up sometimes at the time, but the bulk of the emphasis by Bork’s opponents (eg. Ted Kennedy’s ‘Robert Bork’s America’) was just saying Bork was too conservative. Maybe in the long view of history the key justification to reject Bork was related to Watergate (or not), but it wasn’t the main argument made at the time.
The idea of Trump nominating Garland is so ridiculous it’s hard to believe it’s being made seriously. Garland while not apparently as liberal as Kagan and Sotomayor is being named to replace the most conservative justice. The most basic idea of winning the election from GOP POV was to not move the court further left. Garland, who might be the greatest guy on earth, would do that. That said, Trump can be pretty ridiculous, so who knows? Note, that doesn’t address the issue of the thread has sidetracked onto of the rights and wrongs of precedents either party set on the road to obstructionism of USSC nominees. A reasonable level headed GOP President-elect could easily regret that history and not think that he or she would now be obligated to throw away a big chunk of the victory by naming Garland. That’s really just silly.
Well sorry if I was muddled but I really only meant it was one more straw that it was deemed illegal not that it alone should bar him.
Sorry if that sounded like an accusation. Bricker specifically took that position in post 4
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But in my view, the genesis of this back-and-forth rests with the rejection of Robert Bork.
[/QUOTE]
Not just hearings, a vote.
By not even holding hearings, much less a vote, the republicans were doing the cowardly thing. Garland was a moderate. Garland was a person that they themselves recommended as the example of the sort of person that they would vote for. He may not have been as extreme right as Scali who he was replacing, but I would argue that having extreme anythings on the supreme court is not a good thing.
By having them vote, then at least you get to see where all the republicans stand. By having a vote, the republicans who said good things about him, and talked about how he would make a good justice, now have to reverse their position.
By never even having hearings, no on needed to make a hard choice between principle and party.
Also, do you know that he would have been voted down? He only would have needed to pick up a few republican senators. Do you know that he would not have?
I think McConnell knew he would have, and that is why he refused to even allow the subject to come up.
We will never know, of course, how the republicans would have voted, because they were too cowardly to perform the duties that they were elected to perform, so it’s not a prognostication that could ever be verified, but if it came to a vote, I do think that he would have been confirmed.
OK, that’s fine. But notice that you’re now relying on the judgement call that Bork should suffer consequences from falling on the grenade, NOT that Bork was objectively disqualified because “a court ruled it was illegal.”
And of course the Senate is absolutely empowered to make that judgement call.
But how can you argue the Senate must only make judgement calls you agree with?
(omitted)
OK, fair point! This is a difference. I was focused on the result: does the candidate get confirmed or not? You’re pointing out that not voting also has other differences.
I agree. Not voting is more cowardly, to borrow your phrase, than voting and rejecting. That’s a fair distinction.
Yeah, pretty certain. Those same few votes could have been used to force the issue to the floor if need be. They weren’t there.
I disagree, but I certainly admit I could be wrong.
I’m hearing William Pryor, who seems to think consensual gay sex needs to be outlawed…?
So apparently not.